Say Uncle beat me with my own picture and what I planned to make QOTD tomorrow (I’ll have a different one from Paul from today to use tomorrow).  Countertop has a picture of us. Jeff has some more pictures.

Here is my take on the debate we just saw with a slightly edited version of the same picture Say Uncle used:

Proof I shared space with Alan Gura and Paul Helmke. 

Alan Gura. Our point man in the war for our civil rights.

Paul Helmke. The point man in the war on our civil rights.

Paul Helmke shakes hands with Say Uncle.

Countertop, Paul Helmke, Jeff Bishop, and Say Uncle.

The debate was civil and interesting. The gun bloggers (yes, we have some biases) were of the opinion that Alan was holding back some and could have “mopped the floor” with Helmke.

Paul did make a point that surprised us. He pointed out that the First Amendment has been ruled to protect the right to view pornography and other potentially harmful material in private but allows “reasonable regulation” of those same activities in public. “The Second Amendment should allow similar restrictions.”, he said. We would disagree with this point in that the Second Amendment specifically enumerates the right to bear arms and the purpose of defending innocent life. But it was a surprise and an interesting take on things.

I asked the first question when it was opened up to the floor. I pointed out that Paul had specifically called out gun violence when comparing U.S. v. U.K. when Alan had pointed out that the U.K. is one of the most violent countries in the world. Paul had sidestepped Alan’s point by ignoring the total violence rate. Paul responded by saying his organization focuses on the one component of violence. Alan followed up better that I could have. He said the violent crime rate in the U.S. is lower than in the U.K. even though the rate of violent crimes committed with guns in the U.S. is higher. For example the burglaries in the U.S. are done when the occupants are away because they are afraid of being shot (prison interview confirm this). In the U.K. criminals frequently invade homes when people are home because people have money and person items of value. This causes more confrontation between criminals and their unarmed victims. He also pointed out that regardless of the utility (or lack thereof) of some social policy we are talking about a protected constitutional right that does not depend on the crime rate for it to be protected. Constitutional law does not look to the social sciences for validation.

When I was in college at the University of Idaho I remember fellow electrical engineering student Marget M. (her father happened to be one of my favorite EE professors) explain “The Fudge Function” as was sometimes used in the labs by students who didn’t get the correct results. “You multiply by zero and add the correct answer”, she said.

Jeff explains how the Brady Campaign does it.

I was browsing through some screed by the VPC about civilian “sniper rifles” and it made mention of how ours law allows civilians to own the same equipment as law enforcement and the military. This is essentially true but the wording is a little misleading.

It would be more correct to say that the people allow law enforcement and the military to use the same equipment as civilians.

Via email from Daniel Crocker:

I don’t know if you have seen anything about this, but the number of colleges allowing concealed carry on campus has more than doubled this week. Especially as this has not received any media coverage, I feel that this is a substantial news issue that should be covered and would be of interest to your readers. I’ve gone into more detail about this below, but feel free to email or call me at the address below for any additional information.

---

Prior to this week, only twelve colleges in the entire nation explicitly allowed carry of a firearm: The ten public colleges of Utah, Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia and Colorado State University. Following a substantial ruling to remove the ban at the University of Colorado, the fourteen colleges in the Colorado Community College System (CCCS) voted to rescind their current ban and allow any licensed adult with a concealed carry permit to exercise that right while on campus. While I cannot find any direct news articles about it, you may link to the revised policy at:

http://www.cccs.edu/SBCCOE/Policies/SP/PDF/SP19-10.pdf

This action alone more than doubles the number of universities and colleges allowing concealed carry from twelve to twenty-six.

In addition, one of the two community colleges in Colorado not part of the CCCS, Aims Community College, has scheduled a meeting to make the same changes in their policies. You may view an article about this at:

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20100511/NEWS/100519933/1007

This dramatic shift follows in the wake of a ruling against a similar policy at the University of Colorado. Members of Students of Concealed Carry on Campus (Concealedcampus.org) and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (Rmgo.org) originally filed suit against the University of Colorado claiming that state law preempted any governmental entity, including the Board of Governors, from banning concealed carry license holders from possessing a firearm on campus. While the initial ruling went against the firearms activists, it was reversed on appeal:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8082

The Colorado State University (CSU) Board of Governors originally voted to reverse the long standing policy of allowing students with state-issues concealed carry permits to possess firearms on campus shortly after the initial ruling:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14454241

Over the last seven years while the policy had been in place, crime had rapidly decreased and not a single instance of gun misuse by a licensee has been reported. The new ban was opposed by CSU’s student government, the county sheriff, the editorial boards of both the campus newspaper and the Colorado Springs Gazette, as well as more than 1,000 students who signed a petition against the ban in just a few short days. Larimer County Sheriff Jim Aberdeen, was so outraged by its passage that he told local media that he intended to undermine it by refusing to book violators of the ban into his jail, which the CSU police department utilizes for arrests. In the wake of the recent ruling however, Colorado State University has reversed it’s ban on firearms.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15027249

This issue will likely continue to be fought in court. For the time being however, it appears that some Colorado students and faculty will be allowed an option for self defense and that some criminals will no longer have a governmental guarantee that their potential victims will be unarmed.

Regards,

Daniel Crocker
Southwest Regional Director,
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Daniel.Crocker@concealedcampus.org
(205) 370-9126

I am have more than the usual interest in this topic because I have two daughters and a niece in college. Two of them have concealed carry licenses and are prohibited from using the most effective defensive tools should they be attacked.

Or perhaps, as Peter Zatloukal has said, an entire symphony of sarcasm:

After hearing the news that consideration was being given to National Guard troops being dispatched to the city of Chicago to quell violence, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Mayor Daley and Governor Quinn.
Mayor, Governor, congratulations. Your pathological efforts to disarm the honest law-abiding citizens of the state of Illinois have finally paid off in a most graphic way. By making Illinois one of only two states in the United States that denies its citizens the rights granted under the Second Amendment, you have succeeded in turning the city of Chicago into a war zone. Since the beginning of 2010, there have been more Americans killed in Chicago than in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Congratulations, great job, I hope you’re proud.
Frank Ladonne
Buffalo Grove

I surprises me that as much history as we have in this country on blacklisting people exercising a specific enumerated right that people have not learned the appropriate lessons. We need to make sure the people advocating for blacklisting of people who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights get the same treatment by history as those who infringed upon people’s First Amendment rights 60 years ago.